SYRIA--ANOTHER GUNRUNNING OPERATION BY UNCLE SAM; Congressional Record Vol. 159, No. 92

<!-- -->

SYRIA\\--ANOTHER GUNRUNNING OPERATION BY UNCLE SAM

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from

Texas (Mr. Poe) for 5 minutes.

Mr. POE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there is a civil war raging in Syria.

No question about it, President Assad is a bad guy. He hates Israel and

he hates his own people. The humanitarian situation in Syria is dire. I

have been to Syrian refugee camps in Turkey and seen firsthand the

devastation of this war. In one camp I went to, there were 150,000

Syrians in Turkey fleeing from the devastation of war.

However, there are numerous rebel groups trying to remove Assad from

power. Who exactly are these rebels? We really don't know. But we do

know the most powerful among them is al Nusra, an affiliate of al

Qaeda. These extremists on both sides are killing each other in the

name of religion, and the people of Syria are caught in the middle.

Lining up on President Assad's side are the nations of Russia and

Iran; also, the terrorist group Hezbollah, of course, sponsored by

Iran. Lining up on the so-called rebels' side are Qatar, Saudi Arabia,

Egypt, and numerous rebel groups from patriots to criminals to al Qaeda

and outside mercenaries.

For 2 years, the United States has just ignored the situation; but

now, suddenly, the administration has decided it's time to get

involved. The administration's answer: send the rebels American guns.

Send the rebels American guns? Blindly traffic American guns into Syria

and, I guess, hope for the best.

Does this sound familiar, Mr. Speaker? We've tried this before. We've

seen this song and dance in Libya and even in Mexico, our neighbor.

This administration is gun-happy to give guns away. In Libya, the

administration armed the rebel group to oust Muammar Qadhafi, another

bad guy. Well, where are those guns now? Were they used in Benghazi?

Who knows. The administration is still silent on Benghazi. Those guns

are scattered all over the Middle East and in north Africa.

Were they used in Algeria? Remember, Mr. Speaker, in Algeria there

were Americans working at an energy plant there, along with other

citizens from other countries. Two Americans were killed in that

attack. Were they also used in Mali? Who knows. Only time will tell.

And who has died because these weapons end up in the wrong hands every

time we give American guns away to rebel groups?

By providing weapons to radical sectors fighting against Assad, we're

really taking sides in somebody else's war. We're also arming some

radicals who seek to destroy us, like al Qaeda, who is fighting on the

side of rebels. More weapons will only escalate this conflict. More

people are going to die because the United States picks sides.

But Syria and Libya are not the first time this administration

blindly trafficked weapons to terrorists. Let's go back to our own

hemisphere. Let's talk about our neighbor, Mexico. Do you remember

Operation Fast and Furious? We still haven't gotten answers on that

scandal.

In an effort to help fight the drug cartels, the administration sent

thousands of weapons to Mexico without even telling the Mexican

Government. And who got those weapons? The drug cartels.

{time} 1220

Of course these guns ended up in the hands of the terrorists--the

narcoterrorists--and resulted in the death of at least two or three

Americans and hundreds of Mexican nationals. Another botched gunrunning

operation sponsored by the U.S. Government.

Too bad we don't learn from history and stop this nonsense of

furnishing guns to groups in somebody else's country. Did we implement

universal background checks on the violent criminals we armed in Syria,

Libya and Mexico? Yeah, right. Is this the new foreign policy of the

United States--international weapons trafficking?

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, this administration is on a tireless

crusade to ban guns in the United States. Mr. Speaker, why is the White

House so determined on disarming Americans while arming known potential

terrorists, bandits, drug lords and mercenaries? Ironic, don't you

think? But that's a different issue for a different day.

And I ask this question: What is the national security interest of

the United States to be involved in Syria, in somebody else's civil

war? There is none. This is not our war.

Mr. Speaker, this is a regional religious war that we should not be

involved in. It's a war between the Sunnis and the Shias. These two

religious groups have been fighting each other since the year 630, and

now we're involved in this regional, religious war. What's next? Is the

administration going to propose and implement a no-fly zone? Well, if

this occurs, I believe the President must ask for congressional

approval under the War Powers Act.

Almost 100,000 Syrians are dead.

No question, the U.S. should help with humanitarian aid.

The U.S. should work for a political solution, not a military

solution.

But the Administration's policy seems to be traffic guns to third

world countries and subversives and hope for the best.

However, recent history has shown this is a bad idea.

This is a dangerous foreign policy.

What area of the world is next for our gun running government?

Wait and see.

And that's just the way it is.

War Powers Act

(In Part)

50 USC Sec. 1541--Purpose and policy

(a) Congressional declaration

It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of

the framers of the Constitution of the United States and

insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and

the President will apply to the introduction of United States

Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where

imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by

the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in

hostilities or in such situations.

(b) Congressional legislative power under necessary and

proper clause

Under article I, section 8, of the Constitution, it is

specifically provided that the Congress shall have the power

to make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into

execution, not only its own powers but also all other powers

vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United

States, or in any department or officer hereof.

(c) Presidential executive power as Commander-in-Chief;

limitation

The constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-

Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into

hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in

hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are

exercised only pursuant to

(1) a declaration of war,

(2) specific statutory authorization, or

(3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United

States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces

&nbsp;